Acute and Long-Term Comparison of Fixed vs. Self-Selected Rest Interval Between Sets on Upper-Body Strength

Acute Effect of Fixed vs. Self-Selected Rest Interval Between Sets on Physiological and Performance-Related Responses

Background: Although the comparison between self-managed rest and fixed rest periods in subjects experienced in lower-limb strength training has been investigated, the results remain unclear due to controversies among some studies. Therefore, the present study aimed to analyze the role of self-managed rest versus fixed rest in athletic performance, mean propulsive velocity, velocity loss, muscle oxygen saturation, and rest time in trained subjects; Methods: Thirteen subjects with a minimum of one year of training experience (age (years): 26.31 ± 3.84; height (cm): 175.46 ± 5.61; weight (kg): 79.24 ± 6.83) were randomly assigned to two groups (self-selected rest group [SR] = 7 and fixed rest group [FR] = 6). The subjects underwent a session for evaluation (one maximum repetition (1RM) estimation, familiarization, and data collection) and another day for a traditional strength training session for the back squat, consisting of five sets of four repetitions at 80% of 1RM. One group took a fixed 2 min break, while the other group managed their breaks autonomously (resuming when they felt ready to perform the next set at maximum velocity). Mean propulsive velocity (MPV) was monitored using a linear position transducer, and muscle oxygen saturation (SmO2) was measured with a near-infrared spectroscopy device; Results: Significant differences between the groups were found for the rest time between the first and second sets (SR 97.29 ± 23.70 seg vs. FR 120 ± 0.00 seg). However, no differences were found for MPV, velocity loss, or SmO2; Conclusions: Given the similarities in performance and physiological outcomes between fixed and self-selected rest conditions, both can be used equally depending on the preferences and training goals of coaches and athletes.

The Validity of Perceptual Recovery Status on Monitoring Recovery During a High-Intensity Back-Squat Session

Adaptations to resistance training and subsequent performance can be undermined by inadequate interset recovery. Methods typically used to monitor recovery were developed for longitudinal use, making them time-inefficient within singular exercise bouts. If valid, perceptual recovery status (PRS) may be used as an efficient and inexpensive assessment tool to monitor individual recovery.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the validity of PRS on monitoring recovery during a high-intensity back-squat session.

METHODS

Ten healthy men participated in the 2-session study (separated by at least 48 h). Session 1 included anthropometrics, PRS familiarization, and a 1-repetition-maximum back squat. Session 2 included a high-intensity protocol (5 sets of 5 repetitions; 5-min interset recovery; 85% of 1-repetition maximum). PRS was obtained before the first set and during the last 30 seconds of each 5-minute recovery; rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was also collected. A linear position transducer collected mean barbell velocity (MBV). Repeated-measures correlations assessed the common intraindividual relationships of PRS scores to intraset MBV and RPE, respectively.

RESULTS

A very large, positive correlation appeared between PRS and MBV (r [95% CI] = .778 [.613 to .878]; P < .0001). A large, negative correlation emerged between PRS and RPE (r [95% CI] = -.549 [-.737 to -.282]; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate that PRS can be a means for practitioners to monitor individualized recovery. PRS tracked well with RPE, strengthening its utility in a practitioner-based setting. Findings provide insight into the practicality of PRS for recovery monitoring. It could be used alongside other measures (eg, MBV and countermovement jump) to individually program and maintain performance.